Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC (Rule 85)

GR No.
72424, Feb 13, 1989 Case flow:

RTC – granted the compensation (P500,000.00) asked for by the late
INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA administrator
(deceased), CATALINA MORALES GONZALES,
administratrix-petitioner, CA – decided in favor of the administrator and affirmed in toto the orders
appealed from (September 17, 1982 decision)
vs. – after MR, reduced the administrator's commission from P500,000.00
to a mere P4,312.50 (July 19, 1985 decision)
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
ESPERANZA DE LUNA GONZALES AZUPARDO & SC – resolution dated July 19, 1985 is SET ASIDE and its previous decision
ISIDORO DE LUNA GONZALES, respondents. dated September 17, 1982 is REINSTATED
FACTS:
 On April 10, 1964, Jose de Luna Gonzales and former Judge Ramon Icasiano were appointed co-administrators of
the estate of Carmen de Luna in Special Proceedings Case No. 52196.
 On March 3, 1968, Judge Icasiano died so Gonzales performed his duties as sole administrator of the estate.
 On February 23, 1980 Jose de Luna Gonzales died. His heirs filed in his behalf on March 10, 1980 an Urgent
Supplemental Motion for allowances and payment of administrator's commission or fees asking the amount of
P100,000.00. Heir Trinidad Villajuan Vda. de Martinez filed an opposition to which Catalina M. Gonzales, widow of
the late administrator filed a reply.
 On May 26, 1980, the heirs of the deceased administrator filed an urgent amended motion for payment of the
deceased judicial administrator's compensation asking for P500,000.00. An opposition was filed by heir Trinidad
Villayuan vda. de Martinez on the same date.
 On September 30, 1980, the trial court issued an order directing the new administratrix Catalina M. Gonzales to
submit within fifteen (15) days from receipt a complete and sworn inventory of all the goods, chattels, rights,
credits and estate of the deceased Carmen de Luna, indicating therein the current values of each of these
properties and with respect to the real properties, the current assessed as well as market value thereof. The
administratrix filed the inventory as of April 30, 1980 where the total of the real and personal property of the
estate was listed at P10,751,189.97.
 On October 13, 1980, the trial court issued an order granting the compensation asked for by the late
administrator.
 Esperanza de Luna Gonzales Azupardo and Isidoro de Luna Gonzales appealed to the Court of Appeals. On
September 17, 1982, the Court of Appeals through Justice Gancayco decided in favor of the administrator and
affirmed in toto the orders appealed from.
 The appellants then filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision. On July 19, 1985, the Court of Appeals
speaking through Justice Porfirio Sison modified the decision promulgated on September 17, 1982 by reducing the
administrator's commission from P500,000.00 to a mere P4,312.50.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose de Luna Gonzales is entitled to the amount of P500,000.00 by way of compensation as
administrator of the estate of Carmen de Luna.
HELD:
Yes. The applicable provision (Section 7, Rules 85 of the Rules of Court) is the proviso which states: "in any
special case, where the estate is large and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty and has required
a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed." A wide
latitude, leeway or discretion is therefore given to the trial court to grant a greater sum. And the determination of
whether the administration and liquidation of an estate have been attended with greater difficulty and have
required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator rests on the sound discretion of the
court which took cognizance of the estate. (Rodriguez v. Silva, 90 Phil. 752 [1952]). The trial court, in applying this
proviso awarded the sum of P500,000.00 as administrator's compensation.
There appears to be no sound justification why the appellate court should interfere with the exercise of the
trial court's discretion, absent a showing that the trial court committed any abuse of discretion in granting a
greater remuneration to the petitioner. The trial court's order is based on substantial evidence and the applicable
rule.
The records of the case is replete with evidence to prove that the late administrator Jose de Luna Gonzales
had taken good care of the estate and performed his duties without any complaint from any of the heirs.
Considering the size of the estate and extent of the care given by the administrator, the amount asked for is not
unreasonable and should therefore be allowed.

Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC (Rule 85)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. IAC (Rule 85)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR No.

72424, Feb 13, 1989 Case flow:

You might also like